It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Lindsey Graham: White House mulling indefinite detention

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:10 PM
Open Ended Imprisonment

Ok - here we go again. Now, Obama bin laden is contemplating amending our laws to create a new policy that will "INDEFINITELY" imprison "terrorists" without trial...

The White House is considering endorsing a law that would allow the indefinite detention of some alleged terrorists without trial as part of efforts to break a logjam with Congress over President Barack Obama’s plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday. Last summer, White House officials said they had ruled out seeking a “preventive detention” statute as a way to deal with anti-terror detainees, saying the administration would hold any Guantanamo prisoners brought to the U.S. in criminal courts or under the general “law of war” principles permitting detention of enemy combatants.

My concerns about this are two-fold. Who's going to flip the bill for housing these people? and... When (not if) are they going to justify using this new statute against American Citizens deemed as 'terrorists'?

Make no mistake people. because the American People refuse to act, this is what to expect.

The call to action was made and unheeded, by folks who seek a softer method of action.

Well, welcome to SOFT cell 101... don't worry, the rubber hoses wont leave any marks.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:41 PM
This is not new news. The administration was contemplating this publicly as early as last May. Yes, it is abhorrent and creates the worst kind of precedent. BTW, not only is it indefinite, it is preventative. newslink.

Preventative? what does this mean? How do they know what someone might do? Might someone like myself at some point be "preventatively detained" in case I might someday incite violence against the government (for the record, I'm a pacifist)?

Couple this with possible policy changes that allow the government to identify people with "possible links to terrorists", declare them to be enemy combatants and have them assassinated and you've got a very potent mix of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell.
ron paul link

Now, ask yourself. How does one become identified as being linked to a terrorist, or more importantly, how does one define terrorism? In an extremist view, might it be terrorism to incite fear of the government on an online forum such as ATS?

Again, I ask: Am I currently engaging in discussions on ATS with someone who may be declared a terrorist? Scary thought (btw, I don't think all seem really nice and stuff)

I don't know about you, but put these notions together and I get chills down my spine.


posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:42 PM
reply to post by DarkspARCS

I am a Obama supporter, but this is certainly not something I support. I find this is an absolute disaster of a idea...what the hell is he thinking. This is not the American way, and certainly not the liberal way (not that he is a liberal, but one could hope).

Give these guys a trial, if they are found innocent, then send them back to their country of origin...this isn't that hard.

And your absolutely right, OPs...this is completely a tool that will in short time be expanded to remove all sorts of people in the future.

If someone in the white house is reading these everyone a favor and smack Obama upside the head for this...ktksbie

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:46 PM
reply to post by DarkspARCS

Last little remark on this...
This is a non-partisan issue...the furthest right wing nutcase is opposed to this, and the furthest left wing loon is equally opposed to this move. The only ones that would be even remotely for this bill are the truely dumb whom frankly dont belong in a country founded on a system of justice.

Rachael Maddow all but crusified Obama on this subject when it came out...and she is very much to the left, making no qualms about her stance...This is not a left or right issue, its a right or wrong issue.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by SaturnFX]

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 07:06 PM
reply to post by SaturnFX

That's probably the most insightful thing I've ever seen you say!

We definetly agree,this is Wrong for everyone who lives in a country that used to be like the United States of America.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 07:24 PM
reply to post by On the Edge

I am a social liberal, I want to control religion, choice, thoughts on gays, etc...I dont want that to be some governmental institution (government has a way of breaking everything, why would I want them to start adding religion into the mix).

I do not subscribe to any party, however the Dems tend to, at the moment, embrace social liberalism moreso than the Reps.

Partys mean squat to me, Philosophy does...If I can forgive Obama for screwing up something like this, then I am no longer a liberal...I am a party puppet.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:03 PM
The only thing I can find about this is listed under the Geneva convention...

Article 118

Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.

So basically, according to international law under the Geneva convention, I can assume it is perfectly legal to detain these POWs as long as we are actively engaged in hostilities with the country of their capture.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by SaturnFX

Wow, I think I'm going to faint.
I actually agree with you

(yet I can't quite get my finger to hit the star button yet :lol

There is hope for you and yes G_D answered my prayers on giving you some common sense

top topics


log in